> I would have thought that a lack of rule still means that there are
> still rules present otherwise instead of saying a lack of rule there
> would be no rule at all. This means that is is possible to have a
> lack of rule and misrule all at the same time. This is when true
> anarchy would occur.(When the rules that do exist are not adhered to
> and other areas that require rules are ignored.)
I think I understand what you're getting at, but as usual, it all
comes down to language. Saying that there is a "lack" of rule is
open to interpretation/misinterpretation. It could be that the
rule is there, but the enforecement is non-exixsten, or there is
no rule at all. A subtle difference, is it important?
I think that it is, as although lack of rule and no rule are both
forms or anarchy, one is far more dangerous than the other. Having
rules/laws that are not enforced means that the people are riotus
enough to warrant such a situation. Meanwhile a state with no law
is open to whatever the people are like. If they are a docile people
then all well and good, but if they are not then the same situation
as before will occur, and (I'm going to say it again, sorry :)
government will spring up to defend the weaker ones.
The idea of having lack of rule, and misrule running in sync with
eachother is interesting. I find it hard to get my head round it,
and write it out, but I see how the concept could exist. Any
one eloquent enough out there to put it into words?
I'm afraid, though, that my definition of anarchy is different to
yours, Flaps, as I believe that true anarchy can never be attained
for any long period of time, as anarchy is the absence of state and
government, rule and coalitions, etc...
Welcome to the list, BTW :)
Drakir
--------------
Richard Jones
jonesr@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com
--------------
"We are the New Breed,
We are the Future."
--------------